About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 9
CNN 8
CNNW 8
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 5
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 4
KRCB (PBS) 2
WETA 2
WJZ (CBS) 2
KNTV (NBC) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 64
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and i think now it would make sense that we have sent troops to deploy nato patriot missiles to defend turkey against syria, they see that as something that goes against their fundamentalist ideological thinking, and as a result of that, the group has been called into action. unfortunately, as small as this group might be, one could anticipate future targets on u.s. interests in turkey should further nay to have or troop and hardware ce employments take place in theing months. -- in the coming months. jenna: what do you think is the correct united states response? >> well, first of all, we have to be very serious. this is an attack on a nato country inside a nato country. turkey's a great ally. they've been a member of nato since 1951, and this is a serious attack. this is the eighth attack on an embassy under hillary clinton alone. so we have to have a tough response. i think that it's also very interesting that these attacks are happening when the u.s. policy in the region is really withdrawn. we are not active in syria. we are doing just little, minor things around the edges, and ye
. the group is an anti-american and anti-nato group. you may recall that nato is in the process of c deploying sevel american made patriot missile batteries to combat potential threat from syria. it's fox's top story. jennifer griffin is live at the state department. all of this is falling on sct hillary clinton's last day. >> reporter: in fact, it was an extraordinary scene at the state department just moments ago as secretary of state hillary clinton made her way through the hallways and to the exit where hundreds of state department employees had packed to say goodbye, to hear her final farewell. they cheered. it was a very emotional farewell for the secretary of state. the 67th secretary of state who has now left the building, but as you mentioned, the exit was marred by this attack in turkey on the u.s. embassy earlier in the day. here's what secretary of state hillary clinton said as she left. >> of course, we live in very complex and even dangerous times as we saw again just today at our embassy in ankara where we were attacked and lost one of our foreign service nationals and others in
walls would hurt u.s. diplomacy. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey, rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of americ
of being an american puppet of imperialism. the group hates u.s. influence and that turkey is part of nato, which recently deployed patriot missiles here. this was not al qaeda, but marxist, the government says, who just last september bombed a police station in istanbul. no matter who was responsible, u.s. officials perhaps gun shy after benghazi were quick to call it terrorism. >> what was characterized as a terrorist attack. >> a suicide bombing on the perimeter of an embassy is by definition an act of terror. it is a terrorist attack. >> reporter: tonight, u.s. diplomats are cautioning americans to be vigilant in turkey, even though it has been considered one of the safest countries in the middle east. an embassy guard was killed, but the suicide bomber never managed to get beyond the outer checkpoint. the embassy building itself wasn't breached, brian. >> richard engel on the job for us in turkey tonight. richard, thank you. >>> there was more violence in egypt today. this time outside the presidential palace there. a large protest directed at president mohamed morsi. some of the prot
the importance to be vigilant at u.s. and nato and conduct operations on the turkey syria border and calls into question again how to best ensure the safety of u.s. embassy personnel. later this hour we'll talk to peter brooks, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for his take on the latest attack on u.s. interests in that region. >>> well, rebels reportedly capturing a key area in war-torn syria. activists say that opposition fighters now have control of a strategic neighborhood in a northern city, and that's near the international airport. putting rebels in control of a road that regime forces loyal to president assad had used as a supply route. rebels and government troops have been locked in a deadly stale mate in the area since last summer. >>> in egypt now the country's prime minister is warning that chaos is threatening the nation's ailing economy. street violence there and political unrest engulfing egypt for more than a week. all of this coming a day after angry mobs hurled fire bombs at the presidential palace in cairo. egypt's foreign currency reserves have been cut in h
on this. trace, listen, a week ago nato reported that at least one of those missile systems was up and running. >> it is, on top of that shep, there are some 400 u.s. troops on the ground ready to man those missiles in case they are needed. not just to keep the war in syria from spilling into turkey. but also to pressure syrian president bashar assad from using chemical weapons. since the syrian civil war broke out, turkey and the u.s. have gotten closer. nothing new because the u.s. has provided turkey with some $15 billion in arms over the past 60 years. and the marxist groups in turkey, like the ones said to be responsible for today's bombing do not like that. listen. >> they probably have only a few hundred members but they are active and they are kind of triggered into action. it's almost as if they are sleepers. triggered into action whenever the united states sends troops and personnel over to these countries, such as turkey, then you see them come into action. >> he went on to say marxist groups in turkey are much smaller today than they were some 20 or 30 years ago. clearl
. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of
what to do with libya that would bring an unprecedented coalition between arab and nato countries, or whether it was just looking down the road at how we were doing diplomacy and introducing new tools into that mix, it was a very different time than ten, 20, 30, 40 years ago. i've kidded our mutual friend, henry kissinger, think how impossible it would have been for him to sneak off to china in the age of cell phones, twitter, facebook, everything else. it is a time that is testing us. i think we're passing the test, and quite comfortably, but the whole world scene is one now that is so quickly changing and challenging us that, you know, the traditional mode of doing diplomacy is not enough for what we face. >> what do you think didn't go well, what went wrong? >> well, benghazi went wrong. you know, that was a terrible example of trying to get the right balance of being in a threatening place or not being there, looking after american interests, which meant keeping an eye on the militants and extremists who we knew were reconstituting themselves in eastern libya, trying to track
to intervene. >> retired general wesley clark is the former nato commander, retired air force colonel cedric layton is a former intelligence of a certificate. general clark, let me start with you. barbara starr just reported the algerian government has not been continuing, the cia has tried to piece this together themselves. this makes it very complicated and much more difficult. but only now, more than a week later, the u.s. government is connecting the dots which at least from when we talked to omar on the day of the attack seemed to be perhaps visible very early on. what is causing the delay? >> i would suspect the algerian government's quite embarrassed by the poor results. they've been criticized roundly by other western countries for not running a very effective operation. had a lot of people killed in the operation. it's not the way it's done. they pushed it up, they accelerated it, they simply don't have the sophisticated special ops capabilities for hostage rescue capabilities that western countries have. but eventually, i'm convinced, they will share information. we're going to fin
on this technology and start to use it irresponsibly and hard for we the united states to go to nato or the u.n. or an international court or allies and say, hell us sanction this group for their illegal drone strikes when our program is completely unaccountable so getting the rules of engagement down codified on paper out in the open is really helpful for us to continue using drones. and i think whatever side of the issue you're on that should be an important part of this discussion. >> well, you know, and you mentioned there, s.e. anti-war left quiet on this and a phenomenon in politics republican in the white house and suddenly top to bottom party discipline on the right and democrat, on the left. there's been as you said consistent descent on the left. i write for a progressive publication publication, salon, a mark of distinction is we have been aggressively questioning this program. >> you're absolutely right. get some credit. >> and there are other publications, too. this is not -- >> you're right. where's code pink and moveon.org? >> the left did not roll over
and thinking about syria, think about the nato patriot missiles that are now there. he's going to be thinking about what the diplomatic and assistance side is of what is going on in mali which he will know quite well because the u.s. has been trying to support the emergence of a democratic government there for well over a decade. so those two crises are both great examples of where, as senator kerry, he traveled the world. he met with leaders. so the challenge that he has is to go from being someone who's able to drop in and then follow in an oversight role to being the person who really has to make the decisions and who has to say, you know, if mali is a priority, egypt is a priority, turkey is a priority, the conflict between china, japan, and south korea is a worry, the worry about a north korean nuclear test is a priority. we could go on and on. a secretary of state's job really is to keep all those balls in the air so, frankly, we're on tv talking about them as little as possible. >> right. you know, michael, the other thing that strikes me that now-secretary kerry is going to have to de
.s. embassy? >> they are anti-capitalist. and they're very, very opposed to the u.s. and nato. analysts say probably two reasons for this attack. one is to embarrass the turkish government. two is to protest the presence of u.s. patriot missiles on turkish soil. right now, 400 american troops are in turkey and they are moving that patriot missile battery into position on turkey's border with syria. turkey requested that help because of the mortars flying in from syria and they wanted the american missile to help shoot it down. >> and chris, how was the attacker able to gain access to the embassy compound? with all this talk about embassy security and what happened in ben gauzy, how was the attacker able to get there? >> basically he walked up to the embassy wear along suicide vest. but it's a gated compound with blast doors, reinforced woibs, and several checkpoints. he never made it past the very first checkpoint. so when he exploded his vest, it killed one of the local turkish guards whoed what been working for the embassy. it also injured two more guards but they were behind bullet-proof
organization. it embraces a marxist leninist ideology. it is anti-imperialist, anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after, you know, a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group, particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky, capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know, extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why, whoever targeted the u.s. e
-imperialist anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after you know a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why whoever targeted the u.s. embassy today had done so we don't know really much detail tonight. >> tulin
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you made a statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel keeps palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and edit it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senator warner, a decorated navy and marine veteran from world war ii and korean war, a longtime member of this committee. it was good to see him here. he
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
.s. troops and nato forces to afghanistan, but is perpetual war finally over? maybe. the president favors a smaller and leaner military, and one whose limited size could likely discourage international engagements and he seems eager to refocus the troops away from the battles in the mideast and towards the cooler and maybe even cold engagement of the global balance with asia, and it is not clear that the president can end a perpetual state of war, but now is a good time to ask what a more peaceful world would look like. at the table is retired colonel john jacob, and editor and writer katrina vanden houvel and cloeby angyal and also welcoming in our new panelist. >> there was supposed to be the peace dividend at the end of the cold war, but i have given up on thinking about the end of war. >> well, president obama would like to find a different engagement with the world, and that means nation building at home, but even while he spokes those glorious words, we are at perpetual war. the largest problem is that as you step back and ask why is global war the appropriate framework for combatti
the lead in the war with the taliban. nato troops will start to scale back their involvement. >> there's consideration for an enduring presence here which will be to train, advice and assist. we'll continue that work in the aftermath of 2014. at the end of 2014, i'm confident the afghan national security forces can defend this country and the people. >> u.s. troops have been in afghanistan for 11 years. >>> time now, 7:17. happening right now in washington, d.c., the senate's first hearing on gun violence since the deadly school shooting in newtown, connecticut. something dramatic just happened. former congresswoman gabby giffords shock at the hearing -- smoke a the hearing calling for -- spoke at the hearing calling for lawmakers to do something. kyla campbell reports from our washington, d.c. newsroom. >> reporter: hi, dave. gabrielle giffords just spoke. it was very brief. we're gonna take a look at the hearing. gab -- gabrielle giffords stepped away from her my my row phone. five people are scheduled to testifying including mark kelly. giffords and kelly have been pushing for tight
, this time in turkey, a nato ally. we'll talk to a man that knows all about turkey, retired lieutenant ralph peters and why they targeted the embassy now. imagine being on a flight and pilot passing out in midair? this happened last night. terrifying ordeal just ahead. and president's pick getting harsh reviews for his performance at confirmation hearing. why was chuck hagel so unprepared? >> correct or incorrect, yes or no? >> my reference. >> are you going to answer the question. the question is, were you right or wrong? ♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it. >>. >> alisyn: we want to tell you new developments on the growing crisis with iran and nuclear program. rogue nation announcing plans to ramp up uranium enrichment facilities. they will install advanced centrifuges that could speed up the enrichment process. u.s. calling this, quote a provocative step and comes as the u.s. continues to try to convince iran to end
's border? who secures israel's border? it has been suggested that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you may be statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel kids palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had in a party to edit that, i would like to go bad -- and -- if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and ended it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senat
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
. >> reporter: a number of nato countries permit women in combat like canada, france, germany, and australia. the british do not. the secretary's action technically opens all jobs. but the services can still apply for specific exemptions. if women are not able to meet certain physical standards. >> the concern i get when i talk to soldiers is really about lowering standards, saying that we'd have people on our team that can't carry their share of the weight. >> reporter: in the military, they mean that literally. some soldiers are loaded down with armored plates, packs, boots, and equipment, and they're hauling around more than 100 pounds. tank loaders have to lift a 40 to 50-pound shell out of a confined space, spin it around, and push it into the breach. a senior defense official says that standard cannot be lowered. officials have identified specific physical requirements for each combat job. next they'll turn that information over to scientists who can build physical tests to measure if a man or woman is fit for the front lines. >> at recruiting stations, you can't say, here, lift a 54-p
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)